Skip to main content

Exploring the Effects of Value Diversity on Team Effectiveness

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of the present study was to explore the potential impact of within-team value diversity with respect to both team processes and task performance.

Design/Methodology/Approach

We explored value diversity within a comprehensive framework such that all components of basic human values were examined. A sample of 306 participants randomly assigned to 60 teams, performed a complex hands-on task, demanding high interdependence among team members, and completed different measures of values and team processes.

Findings

Results indicated that value diversity among team members had no significant impact on task performance. However, diversity with respect to several value dimensions had a significant unique effect on team process criteria. Results were consistent with respect to the nature of the impact of value diversity on team process outcomes. Specifically, the impact of team value diversity was such that less diversity was positively related to process outcomes (i.e., more similarity resulted in more team cohesion and efficacy and less conflict).

Implications

The results indicated that disparity among teammates in many of these values may have important implications on subsequent team-level phenomena. We suggest team leaders and facilitators of teambuilding efforts could consider adding to their agendas a session with team members to analyze and discuss the combined value profiles of their team.

Originality/Value

This is the first study to highlight the unique impact of many unexamined, specific components of team diversity with respect to values on team effectiveness criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    We calculated r wg(j) using the uniform expected null distribution.

References

  1. Aitken-Schermer, J., Feather, N. T., Zhu, G., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental properties of Portraits Values Questionnaire. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 531–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, N. J., & O’Neill, T. A. (2010, July). The trajectory of emergence: Mining the literature for clues. Extended abstract presented at the annual meeting of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, Washington, DC.

  3. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Applebaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arciniega, L. M., & Castañón, M. A. (2002). El puente chino: un reto de equipo. [The Chinese bridge: A team challenge]. Department of Management, ITAM. Mexico.

  7. Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of group research: What have we learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Easley, C. A. (2001). Developing, valuing, and managing diversity in the new millennium. Organizational Development Journal, 19(4), 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivism orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Evan, W. (1965). Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher, S. G., Macrosson, W. D. K., & Yusuff, M. R. (1996). Team performance and human values. Psychological Reports, 79, 1019–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., & Pagiaslis, A. (2011). Portrait value questionnaire’s (PVQ) usefulness in explaining quality food-related consumer behavior. British Food Journal, 113, 248–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002–1010.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they believe they can? Group-efficacy and group performance across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 25, 67–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: Theoretical considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson, S. E., & Rudermann, M. (1997). Diversity in workteams. Washington, DC: APA Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2008). A contextual reexamination of work team diversity research: Review and future agenda. In E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 11, pp. 25–53). Emerald Publishing, Bradford.

  47. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of team members’ cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 597–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kravitz, D. A. (2005). Diversity in teams: A two-edged sword requires careful handling. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), i–ii.

  51. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. LeBretton, J. M., Burgess, J. R., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Nair, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Prasetya, P. H. (2011). Content and structure of values in middle adolescence: Evidence from Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?: The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C. B., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. C. (2002). Cultural dimensions at the individual level of analysis: The cultural orientations frame work. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34(6), 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Morgan, B. B., & Lassiter, D. L. (1992). Team composition and staffing. In R. W. Sweezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 75–100). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Moynihan, L., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. In B. M. Straw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 327–378). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and job performance of teams. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rodriguez, R. A. (1998). Challenging demographic reductionism: A pilot study investigating diversity in group composition. Small Group Research, 29, 744–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: individual and societal. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the non-development of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. B. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology: Social behaviors and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 77–118). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Baeuerle, N. (2012). Testing the circular structure of human values: A meta-analytical structural equation modelling approach. Survey Research Methods, 6, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (1992). Guidelines for use in team-training development. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 219–245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25–65). London: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance: Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57, 1111–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. van Woerkom, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts? The relations between task relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 381–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 345–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zaccaro, (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The participation of the second author in this project was supported by the Asociación Mexicana de Cultura A.C.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis M. Arciniega.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Brief definitions of the 10 value constructs and examples of the PVQ items

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woehr, D.J., Arciniega, L.M. & Poling, T.L. Exploring the Effects of Value Diversity on Team Effectiveness. J Bus Psychol 28, 107–121 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9267-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Value diversity
  • Team diversity
  • Team processes
  • Team effectiveness
  • Team cohesion
  • Team conflict